SPEECH

OP

MR. JAMES DIXON, OF CONNECTICUT,

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE

NATURALIZATION LAWS,

AND THE

ORIGIN OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN PARTY.

Deliveredm the House of Representatives U. S.y December 30 , 184*5 ^

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON.

1846 .



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/speechofmrjamesddixo



SPEECH.

Mr. DIXON addressed the House as follows:
Mr. Speaker: Had the debate ou this subject been confined to the ques-

tion appropriately before the House, I should have made no objection to the

Teference of the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, to

any committee which the friends of the measures therein recommended might

have desired. But, since the discussion has taken so wide a range as to

embrace the whole question of what is called Native Americanism
,
and the

vote on the question of reference is likely to be understood as a test of our

opinions on the general subject under consideration, I cannot consent to re-

cord my vote as in favor of the doctrines of the Native American party. The
true question now to be decided is, not the question of reference, but

whether this House will authorize the conclusion that its members are wil-

ling to extend any degree of favor to these doctrines.

What, then, are the principles of this new party? If I understand them

they are, first, an extension of the time required by the existing law before

naturalization is permitted; and, secondly, the disfranchisement of all for-

eign born citizens, by declaring them ineligible to public office. I am
aware that the resolutions before us do not go that length, but these, I think,

are among the acknowledged principles of the party. Now, sir, while I am
willing to go as far as any one in preserving the purity of the ballot-box, I

have no hesitation in declaring my entire and decided opposition to both
these principles. The period of probation now required before naturaliza-

tion is, in my humble judgment, sufficiently long, and I am opposed to its
extension: still more am I opposed to that narrow bigotry which would
deny to the foreigner the right to hold office . If the people choose to select

for any office within their gift one not born upon our soil, they ought to

have the privilege of so doing, without any restriction whatever. To them
the question of qualification may be left with entire safety, and there is very
little danger that too great a degree of liberality will be exercised, or that

sectional prejudices will be too easily overcome. The evil, if any exists,
is of another character, and from another source; it lies not in the existing

law, but in the frauds perpetrated upon it; frauds which the wisest legisla-

tion cannot entirely prevent, and which would probably be increased, as the

motives for their commission were strengthened by extending the term of

probation

.



4

But it is not my intention to occupy the time of the House in discussing-
the principles of the Native American party. I confess, however, that

I do not share in the fears of those who apprehend danger to our institu-
tions from the increase of our foreign population . Those who entertairx

this apprehension mistake, I think, the nature of these institutions, and fail

to comprehend fully the spirit of the age in which we live. We have tried,,
successfully thus far, the experiment of self-government, founded upon free

and universal suffrage. It has been our policy to invite and encourage

emigration by extending to the emigrant the same civil and religious privi-

leges Avhich we enjoy, and, from every land where man is oppressed by the

iron hand of despotism, and human hopes and energies are crushed by

usages grown inviolable by time—from the worn-out Principalities of Eu-
rope, perhaps even at some future period from the populous Kingdoms of

Asia, the tide of emigration will pour in upon our country. The population

which we shall thus receive will mingle with our own—the lapse of a few
years will remove them and us from this stage of existence, and their chil-

dren, like ours, will be native-born Americans. Shall we fear, then, that

this stream of emigration may endanger the purity of our political institu-

tions? As well might we indulge the apprehension that the thousand rivers,,

which, from the snow clad summits of a thousand mountains, are pouring

their miglity torrents into every sea, may freshen the waters of the ocean.

But I have entered upon this discussion with the view of taking another

view of the subject. It has been said, during the progress of this debate, by
a gentleman on the other side of the House, that the Native American party

IS not, as it professes to be, an independent political organization, but is in

reality onl)^ a wing of the Whig party. Tliis charge I utterly deny, and

shall attempt to show that, so far from originating or being in any way con-

nected with the Whig party, the native faction had its origin in the strong;

holds of modern democracy, and has been encouraged and upheld by the-

leaders of the Democratic party. They brought it into existence, they par-

ticipated in the riots and murders which accompanied its progress, they

shared the patronage it dispensed in the hour of its triumph, their party

alone reaped its benefits, and it was not until the efforts of patriotic whigsin

New York and Philadelphia had'laid it prostrate, that their voices, with few

exceptions, were raised in its condemnation. At this late hour, when the

battle has been fought and won by whigs, who threw themselves into the

breach regardless of personal defeat, and stemmed the tide of native proscrip-

tion, shall we be charged with being allies of nativism? No, sir; it was in

the inordinate passion for the spoils of office, in the pursuit of which the

Democratic party had already inflicted such a countless train of evils upon

the country, that the native movement originated.

Permit me, sir, to refer to facts, which prove conclusively the connection

of the party which calls'itself democratic, with the first movements and rapid

growth of Native Americanism. If I am wrong in any of my statements I

shall be happy to be corrected. And first, let me ask in what portion of

the country it originated ? It was first heard of as a party in the neighbor-

hood of the city of Philadelphia—not in the city proper, but in the demo-
cratic precincts adjoining. There is a vast political, not to say moral, dif-

ference between the whig city of Philadelphia and the democratic districts in

the vicinity; and while the former has never been tainted by the native



5

lieresy^ the latter was the place of its birth, and the scene of the frightful out-

rages which attended its early progress.

It happened that, in one of these democratic precincts adjoining Philadel-

phia, an Irish citizen, named Hugh Clark, was, about six years ago, nomi-

nated to an office of considerable importance by a democratic convention.

This nomination, though made in entire accordance with the usages of the

party, gave great dissatisfaction to a portion of the democracy. They

could not endure the idea of conferring an office upon a foreigner. In

their opinion the adopted citizens should serve their country in another

capacity—as voters—not as officeholders. According to their idea of de-
mocracy, the duty of a foreigner was to vote the democratic ticket; but when

it was suggested that one of these men should be rewarded for his services

to the cause by an office, their sensibilities were shocked, and their patriot-

ism took the alarm. Accordingly, when the day of election arrived, a suf-

fficient number of democrats spotted io use, their expressive word—the
name of Hugh Clark from the ticket, and while all the other democratic
candidates were elected by a large majority, he was defeated by a vote

equally decisive; and this, for the ostensible, avowed reason, that he was

an Irishman. He was not born on the right side of the water.
The election passed, and all was apparently quiet. The event was by

many forgotten, but not by the Irishmen of that district. They remembered
the injury and insult they had suffered, and they only awaited a favorable

opportunity to avenge the wrongs of their brother. An opportunity was
soon presented. Three years afterwards another election, similar to that

just mentioned, took place, and the democratic Irishmen of that precinct,

with Hugh Clark among their number, abandoned their former political
associates, and voted for the excellent whig candidate for sheriff, Morton

McMichael, and for the whole whig ticket, which by their aid was success-

ful by a large majority.

On discovering the cause of their defeat the rage of the democratic leaders
laiew no bounds. The Irish voters were denounced with a bitterness far
exceeding in degree the servility with which they had before been flattered

.

No terms of reproach were too strong—no opprobrious epithets were too
severe, to be heaped upon the heads of the foreign population. It would

seem that the democratic leaders had supposed the votes of foreigners to be
their own property—that, in their opinion, adopted citizens were bound soul
and body in the thraldom of democracy, and that for them to think and act

for themselves was a crime deserving the most condign punishment. They
seemed to be astounded by the discovery that their Irish fellow-citizens had
had the unparalleled audacity to act with the independence of freemen; and
when they were actually proved guilty of having voted with the whigs, the en-
raged arid disappointed leaders of the democratic party prepared to inflict

the punishment which the enormity of the crime demanded. Then it was
that the outcry was raised against foreign voters; then began the persecu-

tiori of Irishmen in the vicinity of Philadelphia; then were first held those

native meetings, called and principally attended by native born democrats,

who had lost the emoluments of office by foreign votes. These native
meetings were the cause of that excitement, which ended in the riots, the
murders, the burning of churches, with which we are too familiar. They
never would have been held but for the indignation which the adopted citi-



6

2ens of Kensington and that neighborhood, had aroused in the breasts of

democrats, by merely exercising peaceably the right of suffrage and voting^

the whig ticket.

And now, sir, to prove conclusively, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that
these lamentable and disgraceful scenes had their origin with the leaders of

the democratic party, let me state one fact: The same infuriated mob which
perpetrated those enormities to which I have alluded, proceeded directly from

their horrid work of murder and devastation to the house of this same Hugh
Clark, (whose friends had caused a whig triumph at the preceding election,)

and literally sacked, disembowelled, and left it in ruins. Was this a whig
mob, think you? No, sir; it was a mob of infuriated democrats, wreaking

their vengeance on an Irishman who had by his influence aided the whig

party. And still, sir, in the face of these facts, there are not wanting those
in this House, and elsewhere, who have had the hardihood to assert that
the riots of Kensington and the Northern Liberties originated with the whigs.

This wicked falsehood has had its day, and has produced in some measure

the effect for which it was intended; it has alienated for a time many adopt-

ed citizens from the cause which they know to be the cause of the country;

but its day is past, and its effects cannot be repeated.

I might, if it were necessary, give the names of individual members of

the democratic party who were active in originating the native organization

in the vicinity of Philadelphia; but I shall forbear to do so, unless it shall

be rendered necessary. I will, however, state that I have been informed,,

and I believe it to be true, that the only two clergymen in the city of Phila-

delphia who were found so far to forget the duties of their sacred calling as^^

to attend Native American meetings, and by their harangues excite to mad-

ness the most malignant passions of the human breast, and add new bitter-

ness to the unfounded prejudices which already existed against adopted cit-

izens, were open and avowed politicians of the democratic stamp!

In what portion, let me ask, of the county of Philadelphia have the native

disturbances occurred, and where has the native party been strongest? The

city proper has been the scene of none of these riots—none of this church-
burning—none of this triumph over the ashes of the dwellings of foreigners

—

ending in a political triumph over the spoils of office

.

(Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll here interposed and said, that in the very

heart of the city a church was burnt in the presence of the mayor.)

Mr. Dixon resumed : But the mob which burnt it came from other quar-

ters
;
nor is the gentleman from Pennsylvania right in saying that thfr

church of which he speaks was in the heart of the city. It was situated

upon its northern confines, and the mob which broke down like fierce

barbarians” upon the whig city of Philadelphia, and destroyed this church

of Saint Augustine, was a democratic mob from the democratic precinct of

the Northern Liberties

!

So much, sir, for the history of Native Americanism in the place of it®

birth. The leaders of modern democracy brought it into existence, and

nursed its infancy. As it increased in strength, they directed its energies,,

and led its infuriated partisans to the excesses of which they were guilty.

Let us now trace the history of this party in the city of New York. Was

not that city suflaciently democratic in the spring of 1843? The democra-



7

tic candidate for mayor was then elected by the astounding majority of five

or six thousand votes ^ and the party seemed safely enthroned in power for

an indefinite period. But it happened here, as in the vicinity of Philadel-

phia, that some of the most prominent democrats, among whom was the

celebrated Job Haskell, took offence at the appointment of a few Irishmen

to office. It was claimed by them that foreigners were entitled to hold no

office whatever, and to establish this principle, some of the most prominent

leaders of Tammany Hall originated the native party . That it was wholly;

a democratic movement in its origin in New York, and that Tammany-
Hall was the place where it first saw the light, none will attempt to deny. .

At the election in the fall of 1843, this party had, in the short space of six

months, become so large as to encourage its friends to continue their exer-

tions^ and, in the spring of 1844, Native Americanism
,
in the democratla

city of New York, prevailed by a plurality of more than four thousand votes.
How was this result effected, without the aid of democratic votes, in a city
which had a democratic majority of 6,000 one year before ? A reference ta
the election returns of 1843 and 1844, will show to what party the Native^

Americans were indebted for their victory in the latter year.

In 1843, the whig vote in the city of New York was 19,817. This,
was the whole whig strength in a hard fought contest. Of these, 5,297

adhered to the whig nomination in 1844, when there was confessedly not

the slightest prospect of success, leaving about 14,000 whigs, who, knowing^

they could not succeed with their own ticket, voted for James Harper^,

or for Mr. Coddington, the democratic candidate. It is well known that

great numbers of the whigs of the city of New York voted for the democratio
candidates, knowing that there was no possibility of succeeding'with their

own. Probably nearly all the adopted citizens of the whig party thus voted^^

hoping thereby to defeat the native ticket. This acccounts for a large portions

of the whig loss. Mr. Harper’s vote was 24,510; and, admitting that all the

whigs who abandoned their own candidate voted for him
,
which is admitting

all that our democratic friends claim, where, I ask, were the 10,000 votes

obtained which were required, in addition to the votes cast by the whigs, ta

complete the full number given to Mr. Harper? It is reduced by the elec-

tion returns to a mathematical certainty, that no less than 10,000 democrats

of New York, with all their pretended love for the foreigner, abandoned
their own ticket, when success was certain had they been true to their can-
didates. Now, sir, it must be remembered that the whigs who voted for
Mr. Harper, the native candidate, had many reasons for so doing, aside

from their regard for the principles of the native creed, l^hey despaired of

the election of their own candidate. It was natural that they should ba
willing to vote in such a manner, as to defeat the democratic candidates in^

whose political principles they had no confidence
,
against whom they had

so long been struggling, and who were personally odious to the great mass
of the whig party. But what excuse had the 10,000 democrats who joined

in the crusade against naturalized citizens? Their party was flushed with

victory, and confident of success. Their candidates were popular, and

had their entire confidence. There was, then, every reason why they
should adhere to their own ticket, and nothing but the most intense hatred
of adopted citizens, and devotion to the narrow, illiberal doctrines of nativ-

ism, could have induced this army of 10,000 democrats to abandon theh'



8

party, in the hour of its triumph, and decide the doubtful contest in favor
of the native party, and against their own friends.
The victory which democratic votes had thus given to the natives in New

York, enured, it must not be forgotten, to the benefit of the democratic
leaders, with whom nativism originated. Job Haskell, one of its principal
movers, was elevated to the high office of a judge, and his associates were
rewarded not only by seeing all foreigners excluded from office, but by see-
ing themselves appointed. The native party having the entire control of
the immense patronage of the city, thought themselves secure in their
power; and now, sir, if this native triumph was such in form only, and

"was in substance a whig victory, what had the whigs to do but unite with

the natives in maintaining their ascendancy? But, instead of such a

coalition
,
such concert of action, between what gentlemen here call the

two wings of the same army, you find the whig party, in subsequent

elections, refusing all connection with the native faction—and the democra-
tic party of the city of New York, now reduced by the defection of great
numbers of its members who l^ave united with the natives, to a miserable

minority, is only able to preserve its sickly ascendancy by the refusal of the

whigs to unite with the native party, though by so doing they might give a

finishing blow to the old enemy with whom they have been so long con-
<tending.

What, sir, has been the history of the Native American party in Boston?

That city has been as decided in its political character as the city of New
York. If the one has been strongly democratic, the other has been as de-

cidedly whig. And now, sir, let us see what has been the fate of nativism

there. The new party made its nominations in the city of Boston; if both

the old parties had remained true to their nominations, or if even a portion

of the democracy had persevered in voting for their candidates—as did the
noble-hearted whigs of New York on a similar occasion—nativism would
never have succeeded in Boston; but while the whigs remained true, and

refused to abandon their candidates, after five desperate charges they lost

the election; for behold, the democracy of Boston withdrew their own nomi-

nations, and cast their votes for the Native American candidates! Were

cthey a wing of the whig army?

Thus it will be seen, that while in the whig city of Philadelphia

nativism has scarcely been known , it has had its greatest triumph in the

democratic city of New York, and has had a short-lived ascendancy in

Boston, through the treacherous connivance of the democracy of that city.

So much for the union of democracy with Native Americanism at the bal-

lot-box .

But my proofs of the intimate connection between the leaders of the

democratic party and Native Americanism do not stop here. A few even-

ings before the Presidential election of 1844, which resulted so disastrously

for the country, an immense procession of Native Americans paraded through

the streets of New York. It was probably the largest political procession

«ver formed in this or any other country. The whole city seemed to pour

forth its thousands of inhabitants to swell the countless throng, and both the

«nld political parties were struck with dismay at the spectacle. During the

miarch of that procession an event occurred, which stamps the political char-

^ac^er of the Native American party. The procession, in its triumphant pro-



9

gress, took its course to Tammany Hall, the Mecca of political pilgrims,

where all true democrats, after long wandering from the faith, may return

and catch a new spark of the celestial fires of modern democracy—as com-
ets, after a wide, eccentric sweep into infinite space, are said to

“run

To the embraces of the sun,’’

to replenish their fires. Here the procession halted, and then went up a

shout which made the welkin ring and pierced the very skies, for Wright

and Gardiner ^ Polk, Dallas and Victory. For proof of this fact I refer

to the N. Y. Plebeian , then a most decided and able advocate of Mr. Polk’s

election, and now, under a different name, a supporter of his administra-

tion. Let me ask, sir, if this procession was a wing of the whig army?

But further, sir, if further proof is necessary, in October, 1844, the same

paper (the N. Y. Plebeian) published in its columns several extracts from

Mr. Clay’s speeches, in which he (Mr. Clay) advocated the rights of natu-

xalized citizens, and that paper thus influenced the natives to cast their votes

against the man who was too favorable to foreigners ! Permit me to read
an extract from a speech of Mr. Clay, which you will find thus quoted by

that paper, as a reason why Native Americans shouM vote against him and
for Mr. Polk. It is as follows;

^^The honest, patient and industrious German readily unites with our

people, establishes himself upon some of our fat land, fills his capacious

barn, and enjoys in tranquility the abundant fruits which his diligence

gathers around him, always ready to fly to the standard of his adopted coun-

try, or to the defence of its laws, when called by the duties of patriotism.

The gay, the versatile, the philosophic Frenchman, accommodating him-
self cheerfully to all the vicissitudes of life, incorporates himself without

difiieulty in our society. But of all foreigners, none amalgamate them-

selves so quickly with our people as the natives of the Emerald isle. In

some of the visions which have passed through my imagination, I have
supposed that Ireland was originally part and parcel of this continent, and

that by some extraordinary convulsion of nature it was torn from America,

and drifting across the ocean, was placed in the unfortunate vicinity of

Great Britain. The same open-heartedness, the same generous hospitality,

the same careless and uncalculating indifference about human life, charac-
terize the inhabitants of both countries. Kentucky has sometimes been

called the Ireland of America; and I have no doubt, that if the current of

emigration were reversed, and set from America upon the shores of Europe,

instead of bearing from Europe to America, every American emigrant

to Ireland would there find, as every Irish emigrant here finds, a hearty

welcome and a happy home!”

—

Mallory'’s Dfe of Henry Clay j vol. 2,

J9.
19.

This is the language of Henry Clay of Kentucky, quoted by the leading

democratic paper of New York as sufficient in itself to prevent his receiving
the votes of the Native American democrats. It had its effect, undoubted-

ly, in confirming the hostility of native partizans to Mr. Clay. And yet, in
the face of facts like these, the political associates of the editor of that paper

are now attempting, on the floor of this House, to convince the country that
the native party is a wing of the whig army, and that the deruocracy are

the exclusive friends of foreigners!



10

When, where, and by what measures, have the democratic party, (falsely
so called,) shown any evidence of their regard for our foreign population?

Is this friendship manifested by opposition to a tariff, which not only pro-

tects their labor from a ruinous competition, but gives them constant, well

paid employment? Is it shown by attempting to reduce our currency to the

specie standard, and to bring down the rate of wages to the European level?

Is it a mark of friendship to the emigrant to excite his prejudices against a

class of citizens comprising one-half of our entire population, and to en-

deavor to arouse in return unkind feelings towards him^in the minds of this

great body of our people ? Do the interests of foreigners require that, even
after their naturalization, they should continue a separate class in the midst

of our countrymen, and as such be appealed to by political demagogues_^

who may desire their votes? Should they not rather cease to feel and act

like foreigners, when they throw off their allegiance to the crowned head,,,

under whose dominipn they were born, and as they have become, by their

own voluntary act, republicans, know no other character than that of free

American citizens? The men who, here and elsewhere, make such loud

pretensions of regard for foreigners, seem unwilling that they should become

amalgamated with our native population—and, with no feelings of class or
clan, vote as they may judge best for the country, without reference to their

origin; but they desire, by constant appeals to them as a separate, independ^

ent class of citizens, to hold them apart from the great body of the people

—

among us but not of us—to keep alive every imaginary difference, to excite
every half-forgotten prejudice, and prevent the perfect union which would

otherwise take place between the foreigner and the native. The interest of

selfish politicians in this state of things is sufficiently manifest, but it is not

consistent with the true interests of the people at large. The foreigner

should never act as a foreigner, nor the native as a native; but both, forget-

ting every consideration but the good of their common country, should act

as Americans. Both would then be influenced in their votes, by their own

views of the correctness of the principles and measures submitted for their

decision; and the result would be that, as different individuals take different

view of subjects presented to their consideration
,
the foreigner would no

longer be classed as such, on either side of the great questions of the day,,

but, blending with our population, would be known only as an American.

That such a condition of things would conduce greatly to the best interests of

all, cannot admit of a doubt. It was the too successful efforts of nativo

born democrats, to array adopted citizens in a separate class—to excite th&
mutual prejudices of natives and foreigners, and to induce our foreign voters

to act in a mass in favor of the candidates of the democratic party, (while,

at the same time, no foreigner was allowed to hold any important office,)

which gave birth to the native party in the vicinity of Philadelphia. Such

was the legitimate result of the pretended friendship of the democratic

leaders for foreigners ! How much more noble, how much more in accord-
ance with the true interests of all, is the policy of the whig party on this

subject—making no appeals either to natives or foreigners as such—scorn-
ing all narrow, illiberal, sectional views—looking at the country with its
diversified population as one great whole, and knowing no such thing as a

foreigner in this land of freedom; but recognising all who dwell on our soil,

and breathe our air, no matter on what side of the Atlantic may have beent



11

their birthplace, as American citizens. Could such be the feeling of all

classes of politicians, the question of Native Americanism would nev er again

be heard of. Let us see how far the conduct of the democracy'"^ has-

proved the truth of their professions.

It is well known to every gentleman who hears me, that the self styled

democratic party by way of proof of their exclusive friendship for our for-

eign voters, especially for Catholics, preach to them loudly in favor of

toleration, and the rights of conscience. Now, sir, if there is a State in

this Union which is blessed beyond all others with the light of demo-

cracy in all its purity, it is the State of New Hampshire. It is her boast

that she is truest of the true; that the winds of Heaven that kiss her silver

lakes are not more pure, the eternal snows that glitter on her mountain

tops are not more unsullied, than the democracy of her sons. It is not my
present purpose to deny her high claims to distinction in this respect, but L

wish to call the attention of the House to a few extracts which I propose to

read from the constitution of this thiice democratic State, as a specimen of

the consistency of modern democracy, and the love of the democratic party

for foreigners, as well as their liberality towards the religion of a majority of

our adopted citizens. In the constitution of the State of New Hampshire^
printed in the year 1845, by the order of the House of Representatives of

that State, I find the following beautiful specimens of democratic toleration

and liberality:

Section 14. Every member of the House of Representatives shall be

chosen by ballot
,
and for two years at least next preceding his election shall

have been an inhabitant of this State; shall have an estate within the district

which he may be chosen to represent of the value of one hundred pounds

y

one-half of which to be a freehold, whereof he is seized in his own right;

shall be at the time of his election an inhabitant of the town, parish, or

place he may be chosen to represent; shall he of the Protestant religion;

and shall cease to represent such town, parish, or place, immediately on his

ceasing to be qualified as aforesaid.”

I find, also, a similar provision with regard to the Senate, as follows:

Section 29. Provided nevertheless
^
That no person shall be capable of

being elected a Senator who is not of the Protestant religion^ and seized of

a freehold estate in his own right, of the value of two hundred pounds,” (fee-

And further

—

Section 42. No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor, un«
less he shall have an estate of the value offive hundred pounds y one-half of

which shall consist of a freehold in his own right within this State, and un-

less he shall be of the Protestant religion.

Such are the provisions of the constitution of the democratic State of New
Hampshire. Now, sir, let us suppose that a foreigner, a son perhaps of the Em-
erald isle

,
was about to leave his native shores, and emigrate to this land of lib-

erty. Before leaving his home, should he inquire what political party in the

United States was most friendly to Irishmen, he would of course be told, that

the democratic party professed the warmest friendship towards all foreigners

and claimed indeed to be their exclusive friends. If he further inquired which

of the States of the Union was most democratic, he would be told that all

the sisterhood of States yielded the palm, in this respect, to New Hampshire



12

—that there democracy existed in its native purity—(the democracy describ-
ed by the gentleman of Michigan, pure and unsullied as when heaven-born
it first descended from the skies,)—and he would without a moment’s hesi-
tation select New Hampshire as his adopted home. By the aid of the glo-
rious whig tariff, which has diffused, and is still diffusing, innumerable bles-

sings far and wide throughout the land, he is in a few years enabled to over-

come the first obstacle placed in the way of his political promotion
,
by the

democratic constitution of New Hampshire, and acquires property of the
value of 100 pounds. He is nominated as a candidate for the legislature,
and is elected, (provided always that he is not spotted, like Hugh Clark
of Philadelphia, by his democratic brethren for being an Irishman.) But

as he is about to take his seat he finds another objection in his way. He is
asked, before being permitted to act as a legislator, what is his religion.

am a Catholic,” is his reply. ^^Then, sir,” he is told, ^‘^you cannot sit in the
New Hampshire legislature; the constitution of that democratic State permits
no Catholic to hold certain offices. You must either change your religion,
or relinquish your seat.” Now, sir, whatever else may be said of the Irish,
their worst enemies will admit that an Irishman adheres with sufficient te-

nacity to the faith of his fathers. He will not hesitate long on this point,
but will abandon his seat, and probably at the fiist opportunity will sell out

his property and leave the democratic State of New Hampshire, thinking it,
as Dr. Johnson said of a certain other country, ^^an excellent place to go

jfrom.”

In what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect to the State of

New Hampshire. The illustrious gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
Adams,) the other day, in presenting a remonstrance from that State, ex-

claimed, God bless the State of New Hampshire!'’^ And well may every
whig unite in that exclamation. Yes, sir, God bless the State of New Hamp-
shire ! Bound as she has been in the iron fetters of party—steeped to the
very lips in the false democracy of the present day, thrice distilled—she is
now fast bursting the chains which have so long bound her

;
the clouds are

sweeping from her sky, and she is emerging into day. Her whig sisters are

prepared to hail her as almost regenerated
;
and I venture the prediction that

one of the first acts of the whig party of New Hampshire, should they come
into power, would be to propose an amendment of the constitution, by strik-

ing out the anti-republican property qualification, and the odious religious

test, which now disgraces the State.

What, sir, has been the effect of the organization of the Native American

party upon the country ? It seems from the course which this debate has

taken, that certain gentlemen in this House hope to give currency to the

opinion, that they and their party are the peculiar friends of the foreigner.

They now execrate the native party
,
while they have instigated its worst acts,

and owe in a great measure to its existence their own ascendancy
;
precise-

ly as in some districts of the country they have execrated the abolitionists,

whose political action they have also encouraged, and to whom they are

greatly indebted for the power they now possess. It has been their policy

to denounce these parties in public, while in private they have aided and

encouraged them. I know of no benefit which has accrued to any portion

of the country from either of these parties, except to the democratic party.

Indeed, I do not believe that the existence of a third party can ever result



13

in any political good to the country at large. Such a party can be produc-

tive of nothing but unmitigated evil. If any good is ever to result to our

nation through any political organization
,
it must be through one of the

great existing parties which now divide the country. 1, of course^ believe
that it is from the whig party alone that the country can hope to receive benefi-

cial legislation. Gentlemen of different political sentiments perhaps as naturally

entertain a similar opinion with regard to their own party. One thing, how-
ever, is certain, that one or the other of these parties must bear rule in this

country. Perhaps they will take turns, and I confess I believe our turn

will soon come. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Douglass) has just
sneeringly spoken of the ivhig party I think the gentleman may
soon discover that our party is still in existence. I profess no prophetic vis-

ion, but if I were permitted to utter to the gentleman a note of warning, I

would say to him
: , Go 'on with the mad and reckless measures of your

party. Re-enact the odious Subtreasury law, which, having been three times

repudiated by the people, only awaits their action to receive its fourth con-

demnation—a measure which has been the ruin of one administration
,
and

will as certainly be the ruin of the present; carry it out honestly and fairly

—

create one currency of gold and silver for office-holders, and another curren-

cy of depreciated paper for the people—repeal the protective features of our
whig tariff, by which prosperity has been restored to the country—destroy
our manufactures, and deprive the people of that honest and constant em-
ployment by which they live and prosper

;
carry out, in short, all the mea-

sures of your party, without shrinking from the responsibility you have
courted, and I assure the gentleman that all the arts of persuasion, all the

powers of eloquence, which he and his political friends on this floor may
possess, vdil be insufficient to retain the power they have abused within the
giasp of the stiffening and palsied hands of modern democracy.

Sir, the whig party have no fellowship with the doctrines of Native Amer-
icanism, although they are always ready to purify the ballot-box, and to pre-
vent and punish fraud . The charge of instigating riots, murders, and church
burnings is false, and they hurl it back upon their accusers. The whig
party are neither church burners nor yet ^^harn brnmers."^^ One wing of the^
democratic party has taken to itself the very appropriate name of barn burn-
ers. Whether the other wing may with equal propriety be called church
burners, I will not now undertake to decide; but the vile epithet cannot be
fastened upon the whig party.

The great evil with regard to foreign voters is, that demagogues attempt
to delude them into the belief that the democratic party are their exclusive
friends, and often with too much success, the foreigner being necessarily, at
first, unacquainted with the real character of political parties in this country^
But the remedy for this is not in forming a new party, to persecute and op-
press the foreigner. No, sir; the remedy is a different one.

It was hinted at, a few days since, by the gentleman from Michigan,
when he said in a memorable speech that Education made war against
Democracy] True, the gentleman has since explained his language, and
I am willing to allow him the full benefit of his explanation; but truth sits
on the lips of some men, and leaps into language ere they are aware; and
there was certainly more of truth in the gentleman’s remark than he him-
self supposed. Genuine republicanism—pure democracy—is the hand-



14

maid of Education. But the false democracy of the present day—the
base pretexts by which demagogues often gain a temporary triumph—the
covering over of a foul design by a fair pretence—can have no greater ene-
my than education. Let me specify a few of the false pretences of mod-
ern democracy, which education teaches both the native and the foreigner

to understand and despise . For example

:

When the proposition to annex Texas to this Union was first discussed,
the statesmen of the South had the honesty to place it on its true grounds,

and openly avowed their object to be the protection of their own domestic
institutions by the perpetuation of slavery. While the whigs of the North

'differed from them on the subject of annexation, we could not but admire
the honesty of the friends of the measure at the South, in honorably and

openly avowing their real intentions. They had no concealment, no sub-
terfuges, no false pretences. But what, think you, was the ground then

taken by the northern democracy? While their southern brethren de-

clared their object to be the extension and perpetuation of their ‘^peculiar

institutions,” the leading democrats of the North advocated annexation

under the false, the base, the hypocritical pretext that it would be the

means of abolishing slavery, and would thus strengthen the North, and

extend the area freedom .^ This was the great argument of demo-

cracy in the free States. Such hypocrisy must one day reap its reward,

and needs only to be understood to be detested.

Again: Education will teach our citizens, foreigners as well as natives,

their true interests, with regard to the protection of American industry.

Many of our adopted citizens come from a country where the rate of wages

is so low that scarcely a bare subsistence can be obtained by hard, incessant

labor. They have only to understand the subject, and they will see that

*Hon. Alexander H. Everett, a distinguished member of the democratic party who has
received from Mr. Polk the appointment of Minister to China, in his celebrated letter on the

Texas question, published in the Democratic Review, Vol. XV, page 259, thus addresses him-
self to the northern feeling on this subject

:

“ I repeat, therefore,” says Mr, Everett, “ that the general result of this measure will be to

-enforce more effectually, in Texas, the execution of the laws against the foreign slave trade—to
extinguish slavery in several of the old slave-holding States, and to increase, proportionally, the weight

of the free, as compared with that of the slave-holding. States in Congress : in short, to exercise a

stronger influence than any other measure that has yet been suggested in favor of the gradual

restriction and final abolition of slavery. Such being the case, by the general admission of the

most intelligent and zealous supporters of both sides of this question, it is really singular that

any one should object to it on account of its supposed tendency to extend and increase the in-

fluence of slavery; and yet it cannot be doubted, that an erroneous view of the operation of the

measure, in this respect, is not only honestly and seriously entertained by many, but, after all

that has been said of the rights of Mexico, is the principal cause of the opposition made to it at

the north. The great names of Channing and John Gtuincy Adams had taken the public mind

by surprise, and given popularity to the views alluded to before the question had been thorough-

ly canvassed. When the discussion which it is now undergoing shall have had its effect, the
current of opinion will, I think, take a new direction

;
and I believe the eminent and truly phi-

lanthropic men, whom I have just mentioned as opponents of the measure, could they now,

with minds entirely unbiassed, look at it under the new lights that have recently been thrown

upon it, would be the first to give it their hearty and deliberate sanction.’’

In the same volume of the Democratic Review, page 11, may be found the following

:

“So far from perpetuating slavery in the United States, the annexation of Texas, or of the

slave-holding portion of it, gives the only well-grounded hope, according to all present appear-

ances, for its ultimate extinction!”

The friends of annexation at the south will see, from these two specimens of the reasoning of

northern democrats, the grounds on which annexation was by them advocated. Mr. A. H.

Everett thinks even Mr. Adams would have favored the measure, if he could only have seen

bow certainly it would abohsh slavery

!



15

such a rate of wages ought not to satisfy an American citizen, whether he

is such by adoption or by birth , and that the policy which protects them

from competition with this ill-paid labor, is the policy which they ought to

sustain by their votes.*

And here permit me to allude to a remark which fell , during this debate

,

from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bowlin.) He informed the House

that he was opposed lo ail the reforms which are now rife in the country,

not even excepting the temperance reformation. Now, sir, I can assure

the gentleman that in that opposition he will not be supported by the natives

of the Emerald isle. The wonderful reformation which has there been

effected, under the influence of her own great apostle of temperance , has

covered Ireland with glory, and has so raised the moral tone of her inhabi-

tants, that they have been enabled to meet in the most gigantic masses, and

yet in the most peaceable and orderly manner, for the purpose of effecting

a repeal of their union with Great Britain. There was a time when this

would have been impossible. This, too, is one of the great benefits derived

from education.

The State of Connecticut provides by her laws for the purity of the bal-

lot-box, but the people of that State are not in favor of creating a new par-

ty, on the narrow, bigoted ground of Native Americanism. She protects

the ballot-box by her legislation, and she prepares her citizens for their po-

litical duties, by the education which she gives every child within her limits,

native and foreign. She has welcomed to her shores emigrants from every

clime, and she has never, as yet, had reason to regret the presence of the

adopted citizens who have chosen to reside within her borders. They are

industrious, honest, and peaceable; and their skill in agriculture, manufac-

tures, and the mechanic arts, while it has brought to their own firesides

prosperity and happiness, has opened to all our citizens new sources of

* Wages in France.—Calais, common laborers Tgd. per day, with board and without dwel-
ling; Boulogne, 5d. per day do. do.

;
Nantes, 8d. per day, without board and without dwel-

ling; Marseilles, 4d. to 7d. per day, with board and without dwelUng. The food in some
districts “consists in rye bread, soup made of millet, cakes made of Indian corn, now and then

some salt provisions and vegetables; rarely, if ever, butcher’s meat.” In others, “ wheaten

bread, soup made with vegetables, and a little grease or lard twice a day, potatoes or other

vegetables
;
but seldom butcher’s meat.”

Sweden.—^The daily wages of a skilled agriculturist are 7d. or 9d.
;
while unskilled obtain no

more than 3d. or 4d., and board themselves. Agriculturists in the southern provinces live upon

salt fish and potatoes : in the northern provinces porridge and rye bread form their food.

Bavana.—“ Laborers are paid at the rate of 8d. per day in the country,” without board.
Belgium.—“ A skilful artisan may earn in summer Is. 2d. to Is. 5d.

;
in winter from lOd-

to Is. 2d.; unskilled half as much, without board: live upon rye bread, potatoes, and milk.”

Agricultural laborers have less.

Germany.—Dantzig laborers 4|d. to 7d. per day, without board
;
Mecklenburg, 7d. per day

do.
;
Holstein, 7d. per day, without board.

J^etherlands.—South Holland laborers 3d. to 4d. per day with board; North Holland, 20d.
per day without board; Antwerp, 5d. per day do.

;
West Flanders, 96s. to 104s. per year with

board.

Italy-—Trieste laborers 12d. per day without board; do. 6d. per day with board; Istria 8d.
to lOd. per day without board; do. 4d. to 5d. per day with board; Lombardy, 4d. to 8d. per

day do.
;
Genoa, 5d. to 8d. per day do. and without lodgings

;
Tuscany, 6d. per day without

either.

Saxony.—“In 1837, a man employed in his own loom, working very diligently from Monday
morning to Saturday night, from 5 o’clock in the morning until dusk, and even at times with a

lamp, his wife assisting him in finishing and taking him the work, could not possibly earn more

than 20 groschen [about 60 cents] per week. Nor could one who had three children aged
twelve years ,^nd upwards, all working at the loom as well as himself, with his wife employed

doing up the work, earn in the whole more than fl weekly.”



16

wealth, and greatly benefitted the State. In the district which I represent,

there is a body of foreign voters, from the different countries of Europe,

respectable both in numbers and in character. Whether their political

opinions are at all to be attributed to education or not, I will not undertake

to say; but, that they are exceedingly well informed, no one who knows

them will deny; and, sir, I should like to have the gentleman from Michi-

gan witness, as I have dene, the energy and zeal with which they war

against his kind of democracy.

But, sir, if there were no other reason, this is not a time for assailing our

foreign population. It is thought by some who ought to be well informed,

and is whispered here, as well as elsewhere, that we are now on the eve of

a war with the nation from whose shores most of our emigrants come. Is

this, then, a time for exciting the animosity of adopted citizens against any

portion of our own countrymen? I do not believe, for one, that war will

result from the dispute now pending between this Government and that of

Great Britain. While I make no professions of confidence in the present

Administration
,
I give them too much credit for patriotism and diplomatic

skill, to suppose for a moment that they are so destitute of both as to be un-

able to settle this question honorably, and, at the same time, amicably. I

fully believe it will be so settled, and that the greatest obstacle in the way

of such a settlement is the inordinate ambition of certain individuals, who

are now making professions of patriotism, which they hope may at some

future time enure to their own personal advantage. There is reason to be-

lieve, judging from offers of compromise which have already been made,

that the fault is not with the Administration, but with the numerous would-

be candidates for the Presidency in 1848, who are now vieing with each

other in empty threats and high-sounding of patriotism. These

men, I trust, will be foiled in their attempt to scatter the prolific seeds of

wretchedness and misery. throughout the world.

But, sir, suppose they should be successful, and this nation should be-

come involved in war? To what portion of our countrymen could we

look with greater confidence than to the adopted citizens, whose homes are

by the side of our own? To foreign arms we were deeply indebted in our

Revolutionary struggle. The arms of adopted citizens were raised in our

defence in the second contest with Great Britain, and to them we should

undoubtedly be deeply indebted in the event of another war. All these sec-

tional, narrow questions of origin, and of birthplace, would then be for-

gotten, as all party considerations would, I trust, be also forgotten; and the

native and foreign born citizen would unite in the defence of their common

country against the invading armies of a common enemy.